評論
打印
Text 4
閱讀4
Americans no longer expect public figures, whether in speech or in writing, to command the English language with skill and gift.
美國人已不再期待公眾人物在演講或寫作中能運用技巧和文采來駕馭英語.
Nor do they aspire to such command themselves.
而公眾人物自己也不渴望這樣。
In his latest book, Doing Our Own Thing: The Degradation of Language and Music and Why We Should, Like, Care, John McWhorter, a linguist and controversialist of mixed liberal and conservative views, sees the triumph of 1960s counter-culture as responsible for the decline of formal English.
語言學家麥荷特喜好爭論，他的觀點混雜著自由派與保守派的看法。在他最近的書《做我們自己的事：語言和音樂的退化，以及為什么我們應該喜歡或在意？》中，認為60年代反文化運動的勝利要對正式英語的退化負責。
Blaming the permissive 1960s is nothing new, but this is not yet another criticism against the decline in education.
責備放縱的六十年代不是什么新鮮事，但這次算不上是對教育衰落的又一場批判。
Mr. McWhorter's academic speciality is language history and change,
麥荷特先生的學術專長在于語 言史和語言演變。
and he sees the gradual disappearance of “whom, ” for example, to be natural and no more regrettable than the loss of the case-endings of Old English.
舉例來說，他認為“whom”一詞的逐漸消失是自然的，并不比古英語中詞格尾綴的消失更讓人惋惜。
But the cult of the authentic and the personal, “doing our own thing, ” has spelt the death of formal speech, writing, poetry and music.
然而，“做自己的事”這一對事務真實性和個人性的崇高信條，已經導致了正式演講、寫作、詩歌及音樂的消亡。
While even the modestly educated sought an elevated tone when they put pen to paper before the 1960s,
在 20 世紀 60 年代以前，僅受過一般教育的人在下筆時都會尋求一種更高雅的強調；
even the most well regarded writing since then has sought to capture spoken English on the page.
而那之后，即使是最受關注的文章也開始出現口語話的用語。
Equally, in poetry, the highly personal, performative genre is the only form that could claim real liveliness.
同樣的，對于詩歌來說，非常個性化和富有表現力的創作風格成為了能夠表達真實生動含義的唯一形式。
In both oral and written English, talking is triumphing over speaking, spontaneity over craft.
無論作為口語還是書面語的英語，隨意言談勝過雅致的言辭，自我發揮也壓過了精心準備。
Illustrated with an entertaining array of examples from both high and low culture, the trend that Mr. McWhorter documents is unmistakable.
麥荷特顯示先生從上層和下層文化中列舉了一系列有趣的例子，從而說明他記錄的這種趨勢是確鑿無誤的。
But it is less clear, to take the question of his subtitle, why we should, like, care.
但就書中副標題中的疑問：為什么我們應該、喜歡或在意，答案卻不夠明確。
As a linguist, he acknowledges that all varieties of human language, including non-standard ones like Black English, can be powerfully expressive --
作為語言學家，麥荷特認為各種各樣的人類語言，包括像黑人語言這樣的非標準語言，都具有強大的表達力――
there exists no language or dialect in the world that cannot convey complex ideas.
世上所有的語言和方言都能傳達復雜的思想。
He is not arguing, as many do, that we can no longer think straight because we do not talk proper.
不像其他大多數人，麥荷特先生并不認為我們說話方式不再規范就會使我們不能夠準確的思考。
Russians have a deep love for their own language and carry large chunks of memorized poetry in their heads,
俄羅斯人深愛自己的語言，并在腦海中存儲了大量詩歌；
while Italian politicians tend to elaborate speech that would seem old-fashioned to most English-speakers.
而意大利的政客們往往精心準備演講，即使這在大多數講英語的人們眼里已經過時。
Mr. McWhorter acknowledges that formal language is not strictly necessary, and proposes no radical education reforms --
麥荷特先生認為正式語言并非不可或缺，也沒有提出要進行徹底的教育改革――
he is really grieving over the loss of something beautiful more than useful.
他其實只是為那些美好事務而不是實用品的消逝而哀嘆。
We now take our English “on paper plates instead of china. ”
我們現在用“紙盤子”而非“瓷盤子”裝著我們的英語大餐。
A shame, perhaps, but probably an inevitable one.
真是慚愧啊， 但很可能已無法避免。
